Vygantas is a former web designer whose projects are used by companies such as AMD, NVIDIA and departed Westood Studios. Being passionate about software, Vygantas began his journalism career back in 2007 when he founded FavBrowser.com. Having said that, he is also an adrenaline junkie who enjoys good books, fitness activities and Forex trading.

I tried 9.6 and 10 alpha on a winxp Eee pc. 10 was just 6 percent better overall. It was actually worse on most of the tests, and only came out ahead because it lowered the regex time from 1300 ms to 300. Also ran celtickane and both had around 950 ms total. This is not what I expected.

Opera has serious security issues, its easy to get spyware, adware and virus using Opera, thats why I deleted it. I am sticking to firefox, its customizable adblocker, flashblocker and other other security is pretty good and its also qute fast, may not be the fastest, but fast enough and its secure.

@Jim: Are you crazy?
according to Secunia Firefox has 209 vulnerabilities out of which 3% are unpatched. source:http://secunia.com/advisories/product/4227/?task=statistics_2008
Opera on the other hand has 46 vulnerabilities out of which all are unpatched.
Please stop spreading FUD
Also, Opera is really fast at rendering pages. Firefox and Chrome are as well. Just because Safari(webkit) beats the others at this doesn’t necessarily mean that it is the fastest out there. Anyway, wasn’t Google Chrome built on webkit? Strange!
Most of us do not go to javascript intensive sites all the time. On an average page only 4% accounts for javascript. Do a page loading test from numion.com or something. Anyway , this test is run in an artificial environment. Maybe that explains why Chrome fared this badly.

@FasterOPera, you’re not understanding what’s being discussed. Not sure if you’re trolling or confused, but maybe I can help.

First, yes Chrome is built on top of WebKit, but that’s just the browser/HTML/rendering engine. WebKit separates the JavaScript implementation from the browser, so Google chose to replace the WebKit’s JavaScriptCore with their own JS engine: V8.

Second, as for JavaScript only accounting for 4% of “an average page,” again we’re not talking about the part of the browser that parses HTML. We’re talking about the runtime engine that interprets and executes the JavaScript code. That lives in its own box in the browser (JavaScriptCore for WebKit, V8 for Chrome). That’s what is being tested. How quickly it executes the tasks that it’s being asked to do is what we’re interested in. A lot of sites do use a lot of JavaScript code, especially for the smooth Web 2.0/Ajax interactions that you see with all the major web-based mail clients and many other sites.